Back
2023 Supreme(Cal) 1266
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA, CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR
RAJARSHI BHARADWAJ, BIVAS PATTANAYAK, JJ.
The Lieutenant Governor and Others - Petitioners
Versus
Shri Dharam Raj - Respondent
WP. CT No. 28 of 2022
Decided On : 19-10-2023
For the Petitioners: Mr. Shatadru Chakraborty, Mr. Dibesh Dwivedi.
For the Respondent: Mr. Gopala Binnu Kumar.
IMPORTANT POINT
Non-compliance with court orders can lead to adverse consequences, and procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings can impact their validity.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Non-Compliance with Court Order - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - Article 311(10)
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a government servant, was appointed as an Inspector and later as a Protocol Officer. He was directed by the court to rejoin his original post as a Lower Grade Clerk (LGC) but failed to comply, leading to disciplinary proceedings and dismissal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the court order to rejoin his original post, leading to dismissal from service. The court also noted procedural irregularities in the disciplinary proceedings.
Issues: Non-compliance with court order, Competence of Disciplinary Authority, Procedural irregularities in disciplinary proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: Non-compliance with court orders can lead to adverse consequences, Competence of Disciplinary Authority is crucial, Procedural irregularities can impact the validity of disciplinary actions
Final Decision: The court invalidated the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) and remanded the matter for re-evaluation, instructing the CAT to consider all relevant legal and factual considerations.
JUDGMENT :
Rajarshi Bharadwaj, J.
1. The instant appeal arises out of an order dated August 5, 2022 passed by the Ld. Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Calcutta Bench, Circuit Bench at Port Blair in O.A. No. 351/01053/2018 (Dharam Raj v. Lt. Governor & Ors.), whereby the Learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), inter alia, was pleased to dispose of the Original Application (hereinafter referred to as “OA”) filed by namely one Shri Dharam Raj, herein the respondent, quashing charge sheet and penalty order passed against the respondent.
2. Before considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties, the facts of the case in a nutshell are that the respondent joined as Lower Grade Clerk (LGC) in AC Cadre in the Andaman and Nicobar Administration (hereinafter referred to as ‘Administration’) vide Order No. 1962 dated 19.04.1990 issued by the Chief Secretary herein petitioner no. 2 of the writ appeal. The respondent, while being attached to the Directorate of Information Publicity and Tourism and working in diverted capacity in the Protocol Section of the Secretariat was transferred and posted to General Administration of Secretariat Establishment vide Order no. 2835 dated 02.08.2010.
3. The respondent was working as LGC under the Civil Supply and Consumer Affairs Department (earlier Supply Department), on the basis of a training in Legal Metrology in 1994. By Order No. 842 dated 31.05.2011 which was issued by the Lieutenant Governor herein petitioner No. 1, was appointed as an Inspector (Weights and Measures) (earlier Legal Metrology Office) in Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department with grade pay of Rs.4200/- w.e.f. 08.07.2006. In addition to his own duties, the respondent discharged duties of a Protocol Officer without any extra remuneration as directed in Order No. 2083 issued on 06.06.2011. The technical resignation of the respondent from the post of LGC was confirmed on 28.07.2011 by an Order No. 2817.
4. The appointment of the respondent to the post of Inspector (Weights and Measures) was challenged by one Shri Raj Kumar, an RTI activist in W.P.A No. 023 of 2012. The respondent was repatriated to his parent department as LGC; Order No. 842 was set aside by an order passed by the Hon’ble High Court dated 17.07.2012. The respondent was relieved of his duties from post of Inspector vide Order No. 1068 dated 24.07.2013.
5. The respondent failed to report for duty as LGS to the Deputy Secretary (Personnel) Andaman and Nicobar Administration, instead kept discharging the duties of a Protocol Officer under the Secretariat, Andaman and Nicobar Administration. On 02.12.2013, through an Order No. 3849, the respondent was given ad hoc appointment as Protocol Officer by the Administration.
6. The Hon’ble Tribunal through OA No. 121/A&N/2013 and MA No. 351/00024/2014 on 03.06.2014 directed the petitioner department to allow the respondent to serve as Protocol Officer. The Administration extended the ad-hoc appointment of respondent for further period of six months by an Order No. 2800 on 09.09.2014.
7. The Order No. 3918 dated 26.12.2014 entailed that respondent was permanently absorbed in the post of Protocol Officer w.e.f. 25.07.2013 approved by petitioner No.1, treating the period of service rendered by the respondent from 29.09.2009 to 24.07.2013 as Protocol Officer.
8. In W.P.A 047 of 2016 dated 18.03.2016, wherein the appointment of the respondent as Protocol Officer on ad-hoc basis and thereafter his absorption in the permanent post by order dated 26.12.2014 was under scrutiny, the Learned Single Judge, quashing Order No. 3849 and Order No.3918 was pleased to pass the following order :-
“Since the service of the respondent No.6 in the parent Department as Lower Grade Clerk has not been terminated and since the respondent No.6 is willing to join back to the post of Lower Grade Clerk in the parent Department, the period of service rendered by the respondent No.6 under Andaman and
